Do all people you send mails to expect you to send mails to them? Did you eventually get no answer to a mail you sent to someone you don't normally send mail to?
People won't complain about not getting your mail if they don't have a clue that you sent them any mail.
Or, at least, crewing some of them – robotic drone fighters would be a tremendous boon to space soldiers, but the communication lag between planets and vessels in orbit would make the split-second judgments of humans necessary at times. (Until we perfect AIs but if we're giving them the space fighters from the beginning, we deserve the robot uprising we'll get.)
I disagree. He seems to think that AI has to be human-level AI. But I think the intelligence needed would be roughly at the level of wolves. The ships have to cooperate, they have to react on the enemy ships, they have to distinguish between own and enemy ships, they have to do a certain amount of tactics. For any more advanced tactics or even strategy, a lag of a few minutes in communication probably doesn't matter. If the battlefield is too far away, there would probably a manned ship in distance which is short enough to allow "low" delay communications, but far enough to not be directly involved in the fight (just to remind you: The sun-earth distance is just about eight light-minutes, so you can get quite far away if you can tolerate moderate communications lag).
Actually, if any money went into the code being written, then there IS a monetary loss. Not to mention time and hard work.
No. That money and work investment would have gone in the code even without anyone copying it. Things would be different if the copier told the author to write the stuff for him, and then refused to pay for it. In that case, the investment would be in direct response to the copier's demand, and therefore him taking the result of this work and investment without paying would clearly be bad (assuming the author doesn't allow it, of course).
Okay, this part is true. Since you seem to be so well versed in logic, let's apply YOUR argument to another topic to show that it's not valid.
Plagiarism should be legal! Why? Well, you're not "stealing" something, since the person from whom you plagiarized still has it after you plagiarize it. And there's no loss, there's only not a profit!
That's not my argument. I didn't argue that copying should be legal, but that the argument that copying should be illegal because the author would lose something is wrong. That doesn't mean there may not be other arguments against copying.
You always have to distinguish between the argument itself and whatever you can inductively imply about someone from the fact that he gives that argument. My argument was not an argument for copying, but an argument against an argument against copying, arguing that that argument is wrong. From the fact that I gave that argument you certainly can infer something about my opinions about copying in general (however, be careful not to overreach in your conclusion; always remember that it's inductive reasoning you're applying here). However, that's not part of the argument. It's well possible that my general opinion on this subject is wrong, without affecting in the least the validity of my argument.
Here's what you get when you apply my argument to plagiarism:
"The argument that plagiarism is bad because the person plagiarized loses money due to the plagiarism is wrong."
And I completely agree to that. The problem with plagiarism isn't money or invested work (although it certainly may affect your income). The problem with plagiarism is reputation.
You just proved that you are scum.Everyone who says or even thinks something like this is simply scum. Sorry. No, you are not scum because of your opinions about copying. You are scum because of exactly what I quoted above.
I wish you that you don't die of AIDS. Not even scum like you deserves that. Instead I wish you to become wiser.
Private stuff? It's merely the product of his labors, as is code to a programmer. Why is there a distinction between private and non-private "stuff" anyway?
For example, say he has naked photos of his girl friend in his house. Do you think he (or his girl friend) would be happy if a total stranger sees them? And I'm pretty sure the answer to this question has zero relation to the work he put into those photos.
Oh fuck off with your "it's not theft" bullshit.
Great argument;-) Especially since I haven't talked about words. I talked about effects. Namely the effect of something not being there any more.
You directly damage people by copying their code without paying them for it. It is a real, tangible effect.
No. Not any more than by simply not using their damned code at all. They don't have a loss, they only do not get a profit. There is no basic right to get a profit from whatever you do.
You just compared closed source code and IP law to slavery and homicide
No, I didn't. I applied your argument to slavery and homicide, to show that the argument isn't valid. If you don't get the difference, you should take a course in basic logic.
How about I go to your house and just take what I want?
The analogy fails in several ways. First: Your house usually contains private stuff. Going to someone's house is more like breaking into his computer. Second: If you take something away, it's not there any more.
And the argument that some people do something for a living doesn't tell you anything about if that should be legal. In the times of slavery, some people were trading slaves for a living. Professional killers kill for a living. By your logic, slavery and killing should be legal.
It wasn't just copyright infringement. It was plagiarism. If I rip off gcc and sell it as my own compiler, it won't even help me if I distribute it as GPLv3. No proper attribution = plagiarism.
Well, in India there live about 1 billion people. With about 48 deaths per 100 people each year, this means 48 million people dying in India each year. That incident was in December 1984, that is, 25 years ago. Therefore, approximately 1200 million people died after the accident. That's clearly millions. Indeed, more people in India died after the accident than were living there when the accident happened.
But maybe the "in the 1980s" referred to the date range where the deaths are to be counted, instead of telling approximately when the accident was. In that case, of course only 240 million people died in India after the accident, in the 1980s. But that's still millions.
He clearly didn't mean that millions died because of the accident, because otherwise he would have written that.:-)
(Note to humor-impaired readers: Yes, I do know that "died after the accident" usually means "died because of the accident" - no need to correct me.)
No, "Let there be light" was the first sentence spoken. The first thought was: "It's pitch dark here. I'll have to do something so I won't be eaten by a grue."
Yes you can. Smith&Wesson released their first debugging tool for it over a century ago. The application remains illegal for some odd reason I don't really understand.
Ah yes, the original 'point and click' interface for remotely managing stupid.
And it is illegal now you say? My apologies but from the place I hide to avoid stupid, we don't get many updates on all these new fangled laws.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Copyright_Directive
Do all people you send mails to expect you to send mails to them?
Did you eventually get no answer to a mail you sent to someone you don't normally send mail to?
People won't complain about not getting your mail if they don't have a clue that you sent them any mail.
From the article:
I disagree. He seems to think that AI has to be human-level AI. But I think the intelligence needed would be roughly at the level of wolves. The ships have to cooperate, they have to react on the enemy ships, they have to distinguish between own and enemy ships, they have to do a certain amount of tactics. For any more advanced tactics or even strategy, a lag of a few minutes in communication probably doesn't matter. If the battlefield is too far away, there would probably a manned ship in distance which is short enough to allow "low" delay communications, but far enough to not be directly involved in the fight (just to remind you: The sun-earth distance is just about eight light-minutes, so you can get quite far away if you can tolerate moderate communications lag).
No. That money and work investment would have gone in the code even without anyone copying it. Things would be different if the copier told the author to write the stuff for him, and then refused to pay for it. In that case, the investment would be in direct response to the copier's demand, and therefore him taking the result of this work and investment without paying would clearly be bad (assuming the author doesn't allow it, of course).
That's not my argument. I didn't argue that copying should be legal, but that the argument that copying should be illegal because the author would lose something is wrong. That doesn't mean there may not be other arguments against copying.
You always have to distinguish between the argument itself and whatever you can inductively imply about someone from the fact that he gives that argument. My argument was not an argument for copying, but an argument against an argument against copying, arguing that that argument is wrong. From the fact that I gave that argument you certainly can infer something about my opinions about copying in general (however, be careful not to overreach in your conclusion; always remember that it's inductive reasoning you're applying here). However, that's not part of the argument. It's well possible that my general opinion on this subject is wrong, without affecting in the least the validity of my argument.
Here's what you get when you apply my argument to plagiarism:
"The argument that plagiarism is bad because the person plagiarized loses money due to the plagiarism is wrong."
And I completely agree to that. The problem with plagiarism isn't money or invested work (although it certainly may affect your income). The problem with plagiarism is reputation.
You just proved that you are scum.Everyone who says or even thinks something like this is simply scum. Sorry.
No, you are not scum because of your opinions about copying. You are scum because of exactly what I quoted above.
I wish you that you don't die of AIDS. Not even scum like you deserves that. Instead I wish you to become wiser.
I'm a thief because I point out the flaws in your arguments? Very interesting logic.
For example, say he has naked photos of his girl friend in his house. Do you think he (or his girl friend) would be happy if a total stranger sees them? And I'm pretty sure the answer to this question has zero relation to the work he put into those photos.
Great argument ;-) Especially since I haven't talked about words. I talked about effects. Namely the effect of something not being there any more.
No. Not any more than by simply not using their damned code at all. They don't have a loss, they only do not get a profit. There is no basic right to get a profit from whatever you do.
No, I didn't. I applied your argument to slavery and homicide, to show that the argument isn't valid. If you don't get the difference, you should take a course in basic logic.
Well, he probably thought all the time it would be the stork's job to deliver the baby.
The analogy fails in several ways.
First: Your house usually contains private stuff. Going to someone's house is more like breaking into his computer.
Second: If you take something away, it's not there any more.
And the argument that some people do something for a living doesn't tell you anything about if that should be legal. In the times of slavery, some people were trading slaves for a living. Professional killers kill for a living. By your logic, slavery and killing should be legal.
It wasn't just copyright infringement. It was plagiarism.
If I rip off gcc and sell it as my own compiler, it won't even help me if I distribute it as GPLv3. No proper attribution = plagiarism.
The monkey man is your father? Well, it explains your nick ... :-)
Oops, typo. It should have been 48 deaths per 1000 people.
Well, in the shock of hearing them coming through the door, he already accidentally had pressed preview.
Magma motion sounds great. Regular earthquakes make a lot of noise at first.
I think the people on the ISS are. However, there will not be any new supplies coming from earth afterwards ...
Humans survived the 640,000 years ago eruption, they will survive again... how and in what shape... that's another story...
No need to survive. 640k years should be enough for anybody. :-)
Well, in India there live about 1 billion people. With about 48 deaths per 100 people each year, this means 48 million people dying in India each year. That incident was in December 1984, that is, 25 years ago. Therefore, approximately 1200 million people died after the accident. That's clearly millions. Indeed, more people in India died after the accident than were living there when the accident happened.
But maybe the "in the 1980s" referred to the date range where the deaths are to be counted, instead of telling approximately when the accident was. In that case, of course only 240 million people died in India after the accident, in the 1980s. But that's still millions.
He clearly didn't mean that millions died because of the accident, because otherwise he would have written that. :-)
(Note to humor-impaired readers: Yes, I do know that "died after the accident" usually means "died because of the accident" - no need to correct me.)
No, "Let there be light" was the first sentence spoken. The first thought was: "It's pitch dark here. I'll have to do something so I won't be eaten by a grue."
Actually, when they shot him, his head fell onto his mouse, triggering a click, which by chance hit the submit button.
Yes you can. Smith&Wesson released their first debugging tool for it over a century ago. The application remains illegal for some odd reason I don't really understand.
Ah yes, the original 'point and click' interface for remotely managing stupid.
And it is illegal now you say? My apologies but from the place I hide to avoid stupid, we don't get many updates on all these new fangled laws.
It probably violates Amazon's one-click patent.
Did you check if your mail server is actually an open relay?
Actually, you don't need logical deduction to correctly sort most emails. Just say "spam" every time, and most of the time you'll be right.
You mean, skynet actually is created by spammers?
Well, that movie is the best proof that carbon dioxide causes heat. Get that, global warming deniers! :-)
That's obviously a collection of mp3s from Apple Records for use on your iPod.
This clearly holds a list of the offices at Microsoft.
SCNR :-)